R v Stead - [2021] NZHC 1411

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY COMPLAINANT UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS WHO APPEARED AS A WITNESS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CRI-2021-042-164

[2021] NZHC 1411

THE QUEEN

v

ADAM WILLIAM STEAD

Hearing: 15 June 2021

Appearances:

S O’Donoghue for the Crown S J Zindel for Mr Stead

Judgment:

15 June 2021

SENTENCING NOTES OF GWYN J

Introduction

[1] Mr Stead, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to 14 charges in total: four charges of abduction of a young person under 16;1 six charges of driving while

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 210(1)(a); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

R v STEAD [2021] NZHC 1411 [15 June 2021]

disqualified;2 one charge of failing to stop for red and blue lights (aggravated);3 two charges of speaks threateningly;4 and one charge of common assault.5

[2] You accepted a sentence indication I gave on 12 May 2021, where I indicated a maximum end sentence of one year, four months’ imprisonment.6 I emphasise at the outset that your sentence will not be higher than what I indicated in May, so please do not worry about that.

[3] Although you heard the comments I made in my sentence indication in May, I will repeat those comments, which explain the way in which I reach the sentence. Because sentencing is a public function, I will also describe the background facts that are relevant to the sentencing process.

[4] In sentencing you today, I apply a law called the Sentencing Act 2002, which sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing. The purpose of sentencing in your case is to hold you accountable for the harm you have caused through your offending; to promote a sense of responsibility for, and acknowledgment of, that harm; to denounce and deter the criminal conduct; to protect the community; and to assist in your rehabilitation and reintegration into society.7 What that means in practice is that I have to look at the whole situation and do what I can to mark what you have done, but also to acknowledge who you are and your particular circumstances and background.

[5] In sentencing you today, I will first set out your offending, explain your personal circumstances, and set out counsel’s submissions. I will then calculate a sentence by adopting a two-step approach: first, I set a starting point based on the offences you are charged with; and second, I apply uplifts and discounts to reflect your personal aggravating and mitigating factors.

2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(a) and 32(3); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or
$4,500 fine, and the Court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for six months or more.
3      Sections 52A(1)(a)(ii), 52A(6), and 114(2); maximum penalty $10,000 fine.
4      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(1)(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $2,000…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Stead

Details

AGLC: R v Stead [2021] NZHC 1411
Case: [2021] NZHC 1411
Decision Date: 15 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Nelson Registry, the case of The Queen v Adam William Stead was heard on 15 June 2021. The defendant, Adam William Stead, had pleaded guilty to 14 charges, including four charges of abduction of a young person under 16, six charges of driving while disqualified, one charge of failing to stop for red and blue lights, two charges of speaking threateningly, and one charge of common assault. The court was required to decide on an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the purposes and principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2002.

The court began by considering the defendant's offending, which involved abducting a 14-year-old girl on multiple occasions, driving while disqualified, and making threats and assaulting his father and police officers. The court also considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including his mental health issues and diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, complex post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol and cannabis dependency, pervasive developmental disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and other specified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder, attenuated psychosis syndrome. The court further considered submissions from both the Crown and the defendant's counsel on the appropriate sentence.

The court adopted a two-step approach to sentencing, setting a starting point based on the offences and then applying uplifts and discounts to reflect the defendant's personal aggravating and mitigating factors. The court determined a starting point of two years and six months' imprisonment, with uplifts for the driving charges and the assault and threatening charges. The court applied discounts for the defendant's guilty plea, youth, and mental health issues, resulting in an end sentence of one year and four months' imprisonment. However, the court was not satisfied that the defendant's parents' home was a suitable address for home detention due to the history of tension and conflict between the defendant and his parents.

The court sentenced the defendant to one year and four months' imprisonment for the abduction charges, three months' imprisonment (concurrent) for the driving charges, and three months' imprisonment (concurrent) for the assault and threatening charges. The court also convicted and discharged the defendant on the charge of failing to stop for red and blue lights, and disqualified the defendant from driving for a period of one year. The court imposed special conditions for a period of six months after the defendant's release from prison, including assessments and completion of alcohol and drug programmes, a stopping violence programme, and any other counselling or treatment deemed suitable by the programme provider and probation officer.

Orders